What's everyone been using for talking head filters?

[nedcam]

Since I got the 300 I have been shooting talking heads "clean", in the Vivid scene file (+2 Detail), although I have a large assortment of Pro Mist & Soft FX filters. I did this so I could study the results in post and decide what to use, seeing if there's a difference with a 1/3" imager. My jobs run the gamut of 60, 30 + 24. Seems the 300's 24P is so mellow why bother with diffusion at all? My question is:

What have other 300 users been using for interview filters and do you spike detail at all? Or perhaps is it safer if we shoot clean and let the editor play with it with "digital" filters? I usually key light with a Kino Flo Diva light with 1 sheet of Opal on it, so that's pretty soft looking from the get go.

And here's something I don't yet understand: Does the difference between 60, 30 + 24 mean we must use accordingly weaker strength filters? Does the difference between 1080 + 720 affect this at all?

Thanks

 

[hotchkiss]

I shoot most of my talking heads in 1080 30P, I don't use anything in front of the lens. That's largely due to instructions from the client- they'll do it in post, if at all. I haven't done any rigorous tests, but 720 seems soft enough to me already, I'd hesitate to soften it on the shoot.

My cam isn't handy, but I believe my detail is set at +3 . My key is a Cool Lights 4 bank fluro unit with a sheet of frost FWIW.

P.S. As Dan said, I still use a polarizer and ND's for outside work.

 

[puredrifting]

Ned:

This will sound bold but IMHO, all camera filters, other than exposure control, are kind of dead. It is too simple to try out different things in post as long as you have shot a correctly exposed, good looking image. Sure, we all still need polas and NDs/grads, but I retired all of my Pro Mists and Black FX years ago. $199.00 will change your life http://www.digitalanarchy.com/beautyVID/main.html Being used on an interview-driven TCM series of friend of mine is editing. He raves.

Dan

 

[nedcam]

Hi Dan,

You're absolutely right. Old habits are hard to die. My problem is that I know 90% of the editors who receive my footage won't take the time to tweak for crow's feet on women, etc. They are deadline driven, the TV show editors usually edit with a gun to their head.

Do you think Digital Anarchy's Beauty Box software is just Skin Detail function in post? I have had nothing but problems with Skin Detail, but that was years ago when it first came out and haven't played with it since.

Two regular clients want 1080/60i, one is a cop show, the other a Fortune 100, they like tighter than usual for interviews. Ugh! No one looks good in 1080/60i in a close up. They are both Sony F900 clients but I was hoping to migrate them to my HPX300 for cost savings and figured if the 1/4 Black Warming Pro Mist looks good on a 2/3" F900, would it be the same on a smaller chip 300? Just to take the edge off of a woman's wrinkles, figuring the editor won't do it? The amount of pixels on a 300 are impressive but I understand the pixels are much smaller in order to fit, so I am hesitant to filter, even grads, polarizers, etc.

Also I am concerned is that the great majority of my clients, especially the corporate ones, end up dumbing down to standard def anyway, so if I soften on location as is my habit, perhaps that will make the final too mushy. So I will heed you advice and use no filtering on the 300.

Thanks!

 

[puredrifting]

Well, you are in a bit of a different situation than I am Ned. I don't have a 300, I have a 170 and the stuff that I shoot is usually massaged pretty well in post and CC.

Beauty Box is more than just a skin detail circuit, it really applies "virtual makeup" and tracks well in post. It does leave the eyes clear and sharp and you can decide how much of the softening and contouring effect you need. But it is a render hog, taking about 3-4 seconds per HD frame in AE and about 5-6 seconds per frame in FCP.

It seems that most clients these days are skimping on a makeup artist for interviews, which as we both know, is a huge mistake, but people are broke and cheap so there you have it. At least with this plug-in, you have a fighting chance to make talent look good, even when they will not provide a makeup artist.

I recently shot a Bing Crosby PBS special that was mostly interviews with older talent and the producer could not provide a makeup artist and we shot 1080 60i. I have to say, with my 170, the shots look pretty nice but I know from my 300 experience that the 300 is a much sharper and more detailed picture. Also, if you are pretty sure that most of your material will not be ran through something like Beauty Box, I would consider a LIGHT (1/2 or 1/4) Tiffen Black FX. But I would run some tests and show them to the client as well because as you know, once it is filtered, it is filtered, no going back on it.

Dan